Author Topic: Another terrorist attack in the world  (Read 2124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30208
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7366
    • View Profile
    • Email
Another terrorist attack in the world
« on: July 14, 2016, 06:31:07 pm »
0
since we have other threads for shootings in the US etc.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30208
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7366
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2016, 06:33:32 pm »
0
not a confirmed terrorist attack (in Nice, France), but all signs pointing towards it being so.

the death toll keeps rising.. went from 10, to 20, to 30, to some claiming 50+..

warning, this is extremely graphic .. the warning on twitter isn't kidding: https://twitter.com/newsthissecond/status/753708818119397377

my teeth were just grinding together as i watched that. absolutely horrible.. how fucked do you have to be to run people over like that?

earth is basically split in half between horror and amazing. wish we could just delete the horror part.. we'd all be so happy. wtf.

gukl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Respect: +1076
    • View Profile
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2016, 01:50:38 am »
+1
at least 84, horrific

mattyg35

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2016, 03:14:40 am »
0
adarq, first thing that came to mind from that twitter video is that it looks like a set of extras from a movie (not saying its fake, just recalling from personal experience), just everyone laid out, writhing.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2393
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2016, 03:26:59 am »
+2
Quote
Blake WAcum 4 ore
now the democrats will say we need to ban all trucks´╗┐

lol... such stupidity everywhere

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5969
    • View Profile
    • Email
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

mattyg35

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2016, 11:52:59 am »
-4
Quote
Blake WAcum 4 ore
now the democrats will say we need to ban all trucks´╗┐

lol... such stupidity everywhere

How does that logic not follow?
July 15, 2016, 11:52:59 am - Hidden. Show this post.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5969
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2016, 12:30:35 pm »
+6
because trucks are useful for many things and our economy would not function without them, while guns are useful for killing/maiming people, hunting (some guns), and recreational target practice, and that's it. fairly straightforward.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 12:32:22 pm by LBSS »
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

undoubtable

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
  • Respect: +565
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2016, 12:47:25 pm »
+1
Tragic event and again I cant believe the uninformed fear mongering coming from Trump and his camp. First the dude in Orlando who was going through psychosis/ identity crisis and now this guy who seems to be a unaffiliated looney are spurring on reactionary responses. He's calling for open war, closing borders and questioning people's beliefs based on two horrific events. All under his crazy egotistical view that he's warned us that this will happen and only get worse despite the events being unrelated to any specific threat. I just don't get how he isn't called out in terms of "so if you were president you would've already responded unjustly twice under false premises."??

Just to put it in historical terms it's similar to GWB going to war against Iraq on the premise of them having WODs. Referencing back to the class I took on Middle Eastern politics, Saddam and Assad (while not saints) were progressive Nationalists compared to the other factions seeking power in the ME. You can make the claim that the instability caused from removing Saddam from power has caused most of insurgency, chaos, and radical factions to emerge in the past 13 years.

I feel like Hillary is very aware of this with her talks of relying on intelligence but sometimes I worry that she gets caught up too much in public opinion and what the others are saying. Just let Trump keep responding straight off the bat with his fear mongering without falling in line with those hardline views.

Edit- I said he's totally unaffiliated, can't find any source of that so waiting for more info. But he doesn't seem to be directly affiliated.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 01:24:48 pm by undoubtable »
GOALS

Squat 340x3               Power clean 265

BP 225x3                    100m - 11.5

mattyg35

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 02:32:31 pm by mattyg35 »

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30208
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7366
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2016, 03:06:39 pm »
+2
i still can't get over what happened in France.. it's just mind blowing that one guy in a truck could kill 84, and 25 more are still in comas. I think this event has just changed the terror game quite a bit.. These nutbags have always been looking to go on mass shooting sprees, take down planes, set off bombs etc.. When now someone has just proven you can kill just as many (or more) by driving a huge truck into crowds of people.

Why risk so much trying to acquire weapons, bomb making materials, etc.. when you can literally just go hijack a semi truck and run over hundreds of people getting ready to run a marathon? wtf.

This is bad.



You forgot self-defense and national defense.

But yeah, guns = scary = bad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
omg

if more people had guns on them when 'traveling' (walking down the streets etc), do you think firearm related deaths would go up or down? People on the right seem to want more guns in the hands of every day citizens, at all times; no gun free zones either etc. Just speaking out of my ass, but I imagine gun deaths would go up if they were 'on the streets' as much as cars.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5969
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2016, 03:42:29 pm »
+3
first of all, sure, self-defense, by killing/maiming, which i said. or is there another way to use a gun in self-defense? perhaps pistol-whipping? although a gun is like 50 times more likely to be used in a murder or suicide as it is in a justifiable killing, even using a super generous definition of the latter.

and all those personal handguns and rifles aren't defending our country from jack shit. personal guns were useful for national defense when this country was tiny, had no standing army, and only needed to defend itself from attack by people with roughly the same kinds of weapons. the idea that our 300 million guns are going to defend us from some national existential threat is laughable.

second, are you seriously trying to draw an equivalence between trucks and guns? really? that doesn't even begin to make sense. it's like trying to equate fertilizer with C4. sure, fertilizer has been used to make bombs and it occasionally blows up by accident. but really what it's great for, and what 99.999% of people who use it use it for without incident, is to promote plant growth. C4, on the other hand, is designed to do one thing: blow shit up. should i be able to walk into home depot and pick up a bunch of C4, pay, and walk out? no, i should not.

according to the links you posted:

1. the US is the rich country in which you're most likely to get shot to death. we knew this already. the next-closest rich country is finland, with roughly a third the rate of gun deaths per 100,000. the countries ahead of us are not company we should want to keep on this particular issue.
2. roughly the same number of people are killed by motor vehicles and by guns each year in this country. given the amount of road miles traveled, that means cars and trucks are much safer than guns. but they're still very dangerous! so we require that people go to class, practice under supervision, and pass a test to be legally allowed to drive. then we require that people wear seatbelts and we require manufacturers to include air bags and design frames to protect people from impact. and we require that people register their vehicle and pass regular inspections. and if they're caught doing something dangerous in a car, even if they haven't hurt anyone, we remove their right to drive.

all of these steps make sense, and they have a huge impact on public health! look at that list again, the motor vehicle death rates per 100,000 population and per 100,000,000 miles traveled have declined consistently for decades. the latter is now 2/3 of what it was just 15 years ago. for the record, the gun murder rate is about 88% of what it was 15 years ago. violent crime has been declining overall since the 90s. that's a good thing!

should anyone really just be able to buy deadly weapons whenever they want? should we not require training, licensing, registration, and safety mechanisms at the manufacturer and user end, like for other dangerous things we let ourselves do? if not, why not?
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

mattyg35

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2016, 03:45:12 pm »
+1
i still can't get over what happened in France.. it's just mind blowing that one guy in a truck could kill 84, and 25 more are still in comas. I think this event has just changed the terror game quite a bit.. These nutbags have always been looking to go on mass shooting sprees, take down planes, set off bombs etc.. When now someone has just proven you can kill just as many (or more) by driving a huge truck into crowds of people.


Not really surprising when you think of how many people can pack into a certain space (eg Boston bombing), now make it a bit more 2-dimensional (not the perfect word, but I hope you understand what I'm saying) given that the vehicle can move.

Quote
Why risk so much trying to acquire weapons, bomb making materials, etc.. when you can literally just go hijack a semi truck and run over hundreds of people getting ready to run a marathon? wtf.

This is bad.

Yes, when people want to hurt others, they'll find a way.


You forgot self-defense and national defense.

But yeah, guns = scary = bad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
omg

if more people had guns on them when 'traveling' (walking down the streets etc), do you think firearm related deaths would go up or down? People on the right seem to want more guns in the hands of every day citizens, at all times; no gun free zones either etc. Just speaking out of my ass, but I imagine gun deaths would go up if they were 'on the streets' as much as cars.
[/quote]

The number of cars (~250M in US) and the number of guns (~300M according to quick google search).

The thing that baffles me with people on the left with the continued push for more gun control is that they're punishing the wrong crowd. Look at the number of firearm owners vs the number of group that commit crimes with firearms.
I'm pretty sure it's approaching 99% or higher for the number of legal firearm owners that re responsible. Having trouble finding specific data to cite, but this paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610545/

Estimates that there at least/about 57M firearm owners in the US.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

2014, 8124 homicides by firearm
Lets assume that each homicide was committed by one person, so no multiple murders, to maximize the number of offenders.
8124 offenders/57M owners *100 = 0.01425%
100%-0.01425 = 99.98574% of firearm owners don't commit homicide.

Now, we assumed that all homicides were committed by legal firearm owners. This obviously isn't true, but serves to prove a point that even more than 99.98574% of legal firearm owners don't kill people. Knowing this, that it's probably safe to say that 99.99% of legal firearm owners don't kill people, why keep pushing for them to be punished? IMO, that's not right.

The next thing, that may be brought up, is what about armed robbery, rape where firearm was used and all the other potential crimes involving firearms. I'm not going to analyze the data, but I won't be surprised that it's mostly illegal firearms.

The problem isn't as simple as saying get rid of guns. You're literally punishing the wrong people.
The problem is illegal guns, and it isn't from gun show loopholes.

With this knowledge in hand, I'd be questioning the people up top that keep pushing this agenda, despite what the data shows.

Anyway, I know that was kind of long, so if you read this in full, thanks.


mattyg35

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2016, 03:56:10 pm »
0
first of all, sure, self-defense, by killing/maiming, which i said. or is there another way to use a gun in self-defense? perhaps pistol-whipping? although a gun is like 50 times more likely to be used in a murder or suicide as it is in a justifiable killing, even using a super generous definition of the latter.

The fact that you include self-defense as simply "killing/maiming" is quite telling of your bias on this subject.

Quote
and all those personal handguns and rifles aren't defending our country from jack shit. personal guns were useful for national defense when this country was tiny, had no standing army, and only needed to defend itself from attack by people with roughly the same kinds of weapons. the idea that our 300 million guns are going to defend us from some national existential threat is laughable.



Quote
second, are you seriously trying to draw an equivalence between trucks and guns? really? that doesn't even begin to make sense. it's like trying to equate fertilizer with C4. sure, fertilizer has been used to make bombs and it occasionally blows up by accident. but really what it's great for, and what 99.999% of people who use it use it for without incident, is to promote plant growth. C4, on the other hand, is designed to do one thing: blow shit up. should i be able to walk into home depot and pick up a bunch of C4, pay, and walk out? no, i should not.

If you're in mining, I wouldn't be surprised if you had permission or a license that enabled you to buy explosives.

Quote
according to the links you posted:

1. the US is the rich country in which you're most likely to get shot to death. we knew this already. the next-closest rich country is finland, with roughly a third the rate of gun deaths per 100,000. the countries ahead of us are not company we should want to keep on this particular issue.

Is this data normalized for legally obtained and illegally obtained firearms?
That's actually quite telling of Finland, given the relative homogeneity of their population vs the US.

Quote
2. roughly the same number of people are killed by motor vehicles and by guns each year in this country. given the amount of road miles traveled, that means cars and trucks are much safer than guns. but they're still very dangerous! so we require that people go to class, practice under supervision, and pass a test to be legally allowed to drive. then we require that people wear seatbelts and we require manufacturers to include air bags and design frames to protect people from impact. and we require that people register their vehicle and pass regular inspections. and if they're caught doing something dangerous in a car, even if they haven't hurt anyone, we remove their right to drive.

Well if you want to compare it like that then lets compare the number of bullets fired at inanimate targets per year versus the number that are used on people. You lose.
If you're going to make comparisons that aren't shit, you need to make sure it's apples and apples as much as possible.
There's tons of laws and regulations about the safe use of firearms, just as there is with cars.

Quote
all of these steps make sense, and they have a huge impact on public health! look at that list again, the motor vehicle death rates per 100,000 population and per 100,000,000 miles traveled have declined consistently for decades. the latter is now 2/3 of what it was just 15 years ago. for the record, the gun murder rate is about 88% of what it was 15 years ago. violent crime has been declining overall since the 90s. that's a good thing!

Yes, it's good that the number of firearm homicides have decreased. Is that data normalized for population differences?

Quote
should anyone really just be able to buy deadly weapons whenever they want? should we not require training, licensing, registration, and safety mechanisms at the manufacturer and user end, like for other dangerous things we let ourselves do? if not, why not?

See my post above, I had it written up while you posted. You want to punish all firearm owners, for the acts of a few, despite what the data shows.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11376
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +5969
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Another terrorist attack in the world
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2016, 05:24:29 pm »
+1
what other way than killing or maiming could you use a gun for self defense? i guess i forgot shooting into the air. fair point, i think? doesn't make too much of a difference to my overall point, but then we're just talking past each other anyway.

the point about if i was in mining is hilarious, i actually laughed out loud. sure, if i was in mining i might have a license to get explosives. if i owned a firing range or hunted for subsistence i'd definitely own some guns, too. great point.

sure, let's go with times people fired at inanimate objects (or animals) per year vs. people killed. even so we drive more than three trillion miles a year, so the rate is still way lower than bullets fired or times firing a gun or whatever. ok.

also, on the two things where you asked if the stats were "normalized": i have no idea what the ratio of legally owned/illegally owned guns is in this country, let alone any other country. i don't even know how one goes about legally owning a gun in finland, or honduras. interesting question. the rate numbers are, um, rates. so yeah they're indexed to population. that's what a rate is.

i do NOT want to punish gun owners. regulation is not punishment! it's a recognition, by society, that it's in everyone's interest to make and enforce rules about dangerous things that we use and do. guns are no different in that general sense than cars, plastic explosives, mercury, CFCs, home electrical wiring, or anything else. guns kill more than 30,000 people a year in the US (2/3 of deaths are suicides). we could make that number come down, but because there are a lot of people, apparently including you, who think that somehow any step to regulate gun ownership is trampling on their rights, we do nothing.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag